Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:07, 16 October 2005

If you have any comment related to the Cool Cat mentorship, please raise it here.

Coolcat prohibited from mediating

That is not rigjt. 4-3 is not a pass, this was replaced by the warning tag. Fadix 17:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the arbitration committee works by majority vote. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, each against vote substract, and it takes 4 supports(which means, 4-0,5-1,6-2 etc.) to get approved. Another proposition replaced this one, which was approved, and it was the warning tag. Fadix 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Fadix you're thinking about the four votes required to close a case. In that particular instance the contrary votes subtract one vote each from the tally and the case isn't closed until the tally reaches four. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy under "Final decision" for a detailed description of how decisions are generally made: simple majority.

By the way, I decided to remove the decisions because they were redundant and a little intrusive. The final decision contains the same text. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for the clarification. There is still the fact that both, the tag thing and this passed, both are contradictory with eachothers. Fadix 02:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think they handled this contradiction by quietly forgetting about the tag thing. It isn't in the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat prohibited from restructuring

User:Cool Cat is required to abide by the ArbCom's decisions. He has engaged in many "restructurings" of talk pages and has been required to limit his editing of talk pages as a result. This is appropriate. Votes on requested moves for example should go at the end of the list (end of a section enough for me) and he's free to comment on a request in progress at the end of sections. No Problem — Good Wikiquette. — Davenbelle 10:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're being pragmatic about it. I have asked the arbitrators for clarification so they'll have to decide how literally they want the judgement to be interpreted. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat

User:Cool Cat has added a note (new diff) to his user page blaming his low activity on "several disturbed individuals have been actively annoying me." This is an obvious reference to Karl Meier, Fadix and myself. This is inappropriate behavior on his part and I request that his mentors advise him of this. User:Cool Cat should cease his personal attacks on us if he wants us to leave him some space. I also find his quoting RickK's comment about him back at us offensive. — Davenbelle 06:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit pending resolution of this issue with Cool Cat and my fellow mentors. --Tony Sidaway 06:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ara Ara,

1. Firstly disturbed individual is hardly a personal attack.
2. Do not think you are the only person I am dealing with. I was talking about people like User:MARMOT and several others who have been using vandal bots or have been vandalising my and other CVU members' user page and user talk page. People are being slow in taking more agressive steps against returning vandals and I don't like it. Compared to marmot you are a mild irritation. Just because you are objecting, I'll clarify. By all means your efforts to basicaly irritate me made me 10 times more determined in the end. I would have probably gotten bored long before the RfAr started if it weren't for you. I however find your behaviour in the past unacceptable, Arbcom wasn't too terribly pleased about it either.
3. My user page is a place where I explain people my frame of mind. I do not need to be extremely clear about what I am suggesting on my userpage infact it is generaly viewed as a better practice to write general statements than ones directed at spesific users. A random person who is just reading my userpage will not know who am I referancing to but will be aware that "I am not in the mood" or "I feel discouraged" to write complete articles. The statement in question is general in nature. You or the other two are not significant enough to my wikipedia experience to be applicable of such a comment. Additionaly I am sick of anwering people on why I haven't made many recent edits.
4. Now I think about it you seem to know about a comment on a sub-user page. Why are you aware of this? There is no way one can know about what I added to my user history page in 3 hours of me posting unless he is stalking given if this person is told to not monitor. Also given you complained about me recieveing RickKs vandal fighting barnstar, I cannot take your complaints seriously.
5. I do not "want you to leave me some space" thats an arbcom ruling you are failing to observe. You are complaining the silly on everything. I will have to file a second RfC and RfAr if this continues. --Cool Cat 09:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Cool Cat has now himself added the disputed section back, and commented out the word "disturbed". It's a rather bold thing to do in my opinion, but I guess the mentors should decide about that.. Another question is why do Cool Cat want to start all this? We haven't had any contact with him for quite some time now, and frankly this look like he just want to make himself the center of attention again. Apparently, somehow, he likes the attention. There is a word for that kind of behavior, and that word is "trolling". -- Karl Meier 10:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have negotiated an alternative wording with Cool Cat. I think it more accurately reflects his feelings on the matter, criticising some people for behavior that was determined by arbcom to be a breach of civility, without calling anybody names. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle's comment on moving of User History

Thank you, Tony. Such personal attacks are unacceptable from any user and I agree that this mentorship is the appropriate place to raise such issues. I would urge User:Cool Cat to disengage from us; provocative edits such as this recent one only serve to exacerbate the situation instead of allowing him to "improve" himself. I would also like to ask him why he moved the user history page? It certainly seems like an attempt to hide this; it broke the link I gave to his edit... — Davenbelle 05:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be any problem with actions taken to remove personal attacks from view. A very laudable effort to remove all cause for complaint. --Tony Sidaway 08:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)